Discharge Practices for COVID-19 Patients: Rapid Review of Published Guidance and Synthesis of Documents and Practices at 22 US Academic Medical Centers

BACKGROUND

There are currently no evidence-based guidelines that provide standardized criteria for the discharge of COVID-19 patients from the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

To address this gap in practice guidance, we reviewed published guidance and collected discharge protocols and procedures to identify and synthesize common practices.

DESIGN

Rapid review of existing guidance from US and non-US public health organizations and professional societies and qualitative review using content analysis of discharge documents collected from a national sample of US academic medical centers with follow-up survey of hospital leaders SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 65 websites for major professional societies and public health organizations and collected documents from 22 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the US participating in the HOspital MEdicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN).

RESULTS

We synthesized data regarding common practices around 5 major domains: (1) isolation and transmission mitigation; (2) criteria for discharge to non-home settings including skilled nursing, assisted living, or homeless; (3) clinical criteria for discharge including oxygenation levels, fever, and symptom improvement; (4) social support and ability to perform activities of daily living; (5) post-discharge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.

LIMITATIONS

We used streamlined methods for rapid review of published guidance and collected discharge documents only in a focused sample of US academic medical centers.

CONCLUSION

AMCs studied showed strong consensus on discharge practices for COVID-19 patients related to post-discharge isolation and transmission mitigation for home and non-home settings. There was high concordance among AMCs that discharge practices should address COVID-19-specific factors in clinical, functional, and post-discharge monitoring domains although definitions and details varied.

Utility, Appropriateness, and Content of Electronic Consultations Across Medical Subspecialties

BACKGROUND

Electronic consultations (e-consults) can facilitate patient access to specialists, minimize travel, and reduce unnecessary in-person visits. However, metrics to enable study of e-consults and their effect on processes and patient care are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess novel metrics of e-consult appropriateness and utility.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Primary and specialty care practices at 2 large academic and 2 community hospitals of an integrated health system.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with e-consult requests to 5 specialties-hematology, infectious disease, dermatology, rheumatology, and psychiatry-between October 2017 and November 2018.

MEASUREMENTS

The appropriateness of e-consult inquiries was assessed by review of medical records and defined as meeting the following 4 criteria: not answerable by reviewing evidence-based summary sources ("point-of-care resource test"), not merely requesting logistic information, having appropriate clinical urgency, and having appropriate patient complexity. Interrater agreement in assessments of e-consult appropriateness was assessed by the κ statistic. Utility of e-consults was assessed by the rate of avoided visits (AVs), defined by the absence of an in-person visit to the same specialty within 120 days.

RESULTS

Overall, 6512 eligible e-consults were made by 1096 referring providers to 121 specialist consultants. Inquiries were characterized as diagnostic, therapeutic, for provider education, or at the request of the patient. Most consultations were answered within 1 day, with variation across specialties (73.1% for psychiatry to 87.8% for infectious disease). Overall, 70.2% of e-consults met all 4 criteria for appropriateness; the frequency of unmet criteria varied among specialties. Raters agreed on the appropriateness of 94% of e-consults (κ = 0.57 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.79]), indicating moderate agreement. The overall rate of AVs across the 5 specialties was 81.2%; the highest rate was in psychiatry (92.6%) and the lowest in dermatology (61.9%).

LIMITATION

Generalizability is unknown outside a single integrated health system, where requesting and consulting providers share a common electronic health record.

CONCLUSION

Novel metrics to assess the appropriateness and utility of e-consults provide meaningful insight into practice, provide a rubric for comparison in future studies in additional settings, and suggest areas to improve resource use and patient care.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

None.

Changes in Quality of Care after Hospital Mergers and Acquisitions

BACKGROUND

The hospital industry has consolidated substantially during the past two decades and at an accelerated pace since 2010. Multiple studies have shown that hospital mergers have led to higher prices for commercially insured patients, but research about effects on quality of care is limited.

METHODS

Using Medicare claims and Hospital Compare data from 2007 through 2016 on performance on four measures of quality of care (a composite of clinical-process measures, a composite of patient-experience measures, mortality, and the rate of readmission after discharge) and data on hospital mergers and acquisitions occurring from 2009 through 2013, we conducted difference-in-differences analyses comparing changes in the performance of acquired hospitals from the time before acquisition to the time after acquisition with concurrent changes for control hospitals that did not have a change in ownership.

RESULTS

The study sample included 246 acquired hospitals and 1986 control hospitals. Being acquired was associated with a modest differential decline in performance on the patient-experience measure (adjusted differential change, -0.17 SD; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.26 to -0.07; P = 0.002; the change was analogous to a fall from the 50th to the 41st percentile) and no significant differential change in 30-day readmission rates (-0.10 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.53 to 0.34; P = 0.72) or in 30-day mortality (-0.03 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.14; P = 0.72). Acquired hospitals had a significant differential improvement in performance on the clinical-process measure (0.22 SD; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.38; P = 0.03), but this could not be attributed conclusively to a change in ownership because differential improvement occurred before acquisition.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital acquisition by another hospital or hospital system was associated with modestly worse patient experiences and no significant changes in readmission or mortality rates. Effects on process measures of quality were inconclusive. (Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.).

Identification of Racial Inequities in Access to Specialized Inpatient Heart Failure Care at an Academic Medical Center

BACKGROUND

Racial inequities for patients with heart failure (HF) have been widely documented. HF patients who receive cardiology care during a hospital admission have better outcomes. It is unknown whether there are differences in admission to a cardiology or general medicine service by race. This study examined the relationship between race and admission service, and its effect on 30-day readmission and mortality Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from September 2008 to November 2017 at a single large urban academic referral center of all patients self-referred to the emergency department and admitted to either the cardiology or general medicine service with a principal diagnosis of HF, who self-identified as white, black, or Latinx. We used multivariable generalized estimating equation models to assess the relationship between race and admission to the cardiology service. We used Cox regression to assess the association between race, admission service, and 30-day readmission and mortality.

RESULTS

Among 1967 unique patients (66.7% white, 23.6% black, and 9.7% Latinx), black and Latinx patients had lower rates of admission to the cardiology service than white patients (adjusted rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, for black; adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97 for Latinx). Female sex and age >75 years were also independently associated with lower rates of admission to the cardiology service. Admission to the cardiology service was independently associated with decreased readmission within 30 days, independent of race.

CONCLUSIONS

Black and Latinx patients were less likely to be admitted to cardiology for HF care. This inequity may, in part, drive racial inequities in HF outcomes.